Hybridisation of the RPG and CCG model

[greedo1379]

Greedo- What I'm trying to drive home is that the Collectable CG nature is inherently expensive, for both publisher and player. Not that d20 is the be all to end all, or that Magic is. There are a number of ways something could theoretically work. Realistically, however, it won't. Not as a Collectable game.

I'm just not ready to abandon the idea quite yet.

Magic works because of its tournament driven system. That is the only reason for new expansions. It sounds like you're an early player. If you haven't seen the game in a few years, its changed considerably.

Yeah, I played a bit back in the day but I have started playing Magic Online (starting about 3-4 months ago).  I'm familiar with the cards, deck concepts, and special rules you're talking about.  But I don't agree with most of your analysis.  Regardless, I think its a bit off topic.

And these comments can be applied to any Collectable Card Game out there. The goal of Collectable games is to make money. The rarity is to ensure players will keep buying, the vast majority of the common cards are literally chaff, because if you're content to play with the common cards, you have no drive to purchase more cards to get more powerful cards.

Now this I think is useful and would be exactly my point.  The rarity would ensure that players continue to buy.  A basic game, using mostly commons should still be fun but there should be some motivation to continue to buy.  Perfect!  Sounds like a great concept.

I think you and I are just going to have to agree to disagree.

[daMoose_Neo]

Let me concede this: done right, it is a possibility. I loved the original Magic games, right up until they began regimenting the tournament scene and I feel THAT is what has destroyed Magic and any other game following its model. The one sad point in Twilight is there is no joy upon opening a new pack and going "OMG! I got this!". The gulf between Magic (and other similar) games though anymore is the power cards are TOO rare and encourage TOO much spending. If you can spend a reasonable amount to get what you want, thats cool. If you have to buy like mad, like Magic (or again, others), its a turn off to players. Hell, Twilight still sells slowly.

I will warn of the expense inherent in the endevour though. As I said, it is a VERY expensive product to develop. I managed a cheap run, could have done even cheaper had I looked to alternatives, but being new to the whole shebang I wanted an actual "Game Printer".
Twilight's expansions this coming winter will run me close to $400 for 750 packs and about 10,000 cards.

[Tobias]

I didn't read the whole thread, so shoot me if this has come up before:

You might want to have a look at this (Non-C)CG-based RPG, for inspiration.

As to a CCG where commons-based decks DO win tournaments, check out Vampire: The Eternal Struggle by White Wolf. Recently rated #1 multiplayer CCG.

(If you want to know more about the latter, PM me).

[contracycle]

I'd like to propose a slightly different take on this proposition.

Firstly, I think a number of existing RPG's, with their splat book lines, are already collectible in the most practical sense.  One might say that they are also customizable in this sense, but I suspect that is off the mark a subset of all the texts is incomplete rather than customised.

A customizable game IMO should consist of only those elements which are relevant, right here right now, to this game.  Not to "the game" as an overall concept, but to the game that is being played at the table.  A customizable game would identify those elements of the holistic setting that are being addressed, dealt with, by the action of the piece.  Those that are irrelevant will be sent to the background, and in so doing we signal to all participants that only those elements remaining in the foreground are the ones to be addressed.

This would I think have something like the focussing effect that railroading seeks to achieve, limiting solutions to problems to certain categories of acceptable decision, without mandating in-game intervention to prevent unsuitable avenues being pursued.

[Storn]

I played around with the idea of incorporating actual MtG cards into a fantasy campaign using Savage Worlds as the primary rule base.  Unfortunately, my players had no real interest (and they are all Magic players) and the PEG boards had a meltdown so the thread is gone.

But I do have the core document that I worked up the idea and it is here:

Savage Gathering

   Okay, I have this crazy, crazy idea for a RPG campaign. I mean, it is INSANE.  But it won't leave me alone.  I wrote some of this yesterday afternoon, when I should have been painting artwork.  The rest was finished last night.   I want to marry Savage Worlds with Magic the Gathering.  And I think I've come up with some twisted (and fun) ideas.  Bear with me, this is a bit of a stream of consciousness... and meant to promote discussion.

   Why?:  I've always liked the world that Magic the Gathering hints at.  I love the visuals the cards provide.  I've always wanted to dip into that world and have a role playing experience in it, not just games themselves.
   
   It also provides a brand new campaign so there is no "old guard" or "newbies"... we are all new.

   Premise (not GNS definition of Premise):  Each player is a young mage.  While they are considered "young", I will start them off as Legendary (80 pts) in Savage World terms.  However, be forewarned, there will be monsters and opponents in this crazy patchquilt world who are Legendary ++.

   The Situation:  The PCs HUGE citystate  is one of the last bastions of Free teachings in Magic.  The various schools of magic are cranking out Mages as fast as possible and banding them together in groups of 4 or 5 or 6.  Need a cool name for these covens, but I'm blanking..  Ideally, each color should be represented by each little band of mages.

   There is a reason for this.  Much of the land has been co-opted by the Adversary.  A shadowy force that controls much of the world's mana.  As the group travels, they can wrest control of lands from the Adversary.  But only lands that a mage can "color channel".   In fact, the ritual needed to perform requires the channeling of colors on either side of  target land's color.  And a mountainous region might have "blue" mana.... There isn't necessarily a pure color correspondence between color of mana and the land.  Although, there is certainly predilections.  This is why groups sent out have as many of the mana colors represented.

   Example:  The group manages to deal with the Adversary's forces in a Swamp "county".  That "county" happens to be Blue mana, not the expected Black.  White, Blue, & Black mana must be represented by the Mages and then the ritual takes a day to wrest away from the Adversary.

   Magic Itself:  This will be a departure from the rules in SW.  You don't buy spells, you buy ranks in various aspects of Magic itself, tied into the Magic the Gathering motifs.

Magery I:  The bare minimum.  Gains you 10 colorless mana and identification/ manipulative channel ability with one color of mana.  The mage is considered to have been granted one Land of the right color, held safe by forces of the City-State (need a cool name for that too).

Land:  When Land is wrested from the Adversary, it goes to the City State, who then parcels out these counties to various mages.  This is incredibly political.  By buying the Land edge, your mage has managed to wrestle yet another county from the Mage Council of the City State.

Mana:  Gives you another 5 colorless Mana. (Identical to SW's Power Point Edge)

Add'l Ranks of Magery:  Each add'l rank, allows you to channel 1 more Color mana in a combat round.  Or, one can buy the ability to channel another color... but does not grant a Land county of that color.

Increased Spells:  Get +2 cards to your deck (only after Legendary rank is achieved)

Increased Fortunes:  Get +1 card to your hand, up to a total of 7. (only after Legendary rank is achieved)


   How Does it Work?

   Each Mage starts out with 20 non land, non artifact cards.  Plus one Land for every Land Edge you have, that your mage controls.  These arre chosen pre-adventure and can be of any mix, but obviously, ya probably want colors that you can actually use.

   Combat starts.  Each Mage draws 5 cards from his pre-built deck.  Any colorless mana to be spent, must come from the Mages own Power Points/Mana.  And Color mana has to be channeled from his lands.  If a card is played, another is drawn.

   Channeling is a governor of sorts ( like Essence Channeling in Unisystem).   Usually the Mage has only 1 land, he has to build up the Color channeling in order to cast the spell.  So a two Green mana needs two rounds to build up and then the spell is cast on the 2nd round, and the colorless is paid by the Mage.  The roll is made, success is needed (TN: 4).  But if Land came up in the 5 card draw, it can be played as an action.  Basically, each mage is assumed to have 1 Land on the table automatically.  Any add'l lands must be played from the hand.

   Combat along normal SW lines is perfectly acceptable.  Sword fights, running away... all the normal, non-magic combat can happen as per SW rules.  

   Summoning creatures, artifacts do come in with "summoning sickness".  

   Some of this has to be fast and loose as there is not direct translations of certain card abilities.  Pacify, Counterspell, etc... are just going to have to be integrated as we play.   But where there are numbers, I found these correlations:

   Creatures:
   Creatures summoned are superiorly sophisticated "ideals"... you don't actually summon Rion Vess the Sentinel Elf.  You summon an ideal of him.  Occasionally, rarely, the summon creature might take on a life of its own and stick around after the battle.  Your creature cards represent your Mages study and understanding of that ideal.  However, since they are "ideals" and not the real thing, no summon critter is a Wild Card.  Exception:  you summon a Legend.  Legends are bound to serve you via the summoning magic.  But they might not be happy about it afterward.

Power = certain die of Fighting, Throwing, Shooting.  
Toughness+4 = Toughness in SW.
Damage = based on how many colorless mana is used to summon the critter.

Power of 1  = 1d4 Fight, Throw, Shoot
Power of 2 =  1d6 of "  "
Power of 3 =  1d8 of ''  ''
=  1d10
=  1d12
= 1d12+1
= 1d12+2  

etc. etc.

Damage
Colorless mana of 0 or 1 = 1d4 dmg
= 1d6
= 1d8
= 1d10
= 1d12
= 1d12+1

So, lets take Vulshok Berserker (a red critter).  He has 3 Colorless, 1 Red mana to summon.  He has 3 Power/ 2 Toughness.  In SW terms, he looks like this:  Fighting of 1d8, Toughness of 6 and does 1d8 damage when he hits.  And, oh yeah, he has haste... can go right away, no summoning sickness.

Enchanting and Artifact bonuses.
   Bonuses to Power can be divided between Fighting or Damage.  Bonuses to Tough just are that.     So, Fists of the Anvil give +4/+0 as a card.  So, +2 Fighting & +2 Dmg.  Or can do +0 Fighting, +4 Dmg...however you want to divide it.

Direct Damage
   Some cards do direct damage, Red often.  This is represented like a Bolt out of SW
Dmg of 1 = 2d4
2= 2d6
3= 2d8
4= 2d10
5 = 2d12
6=2d12+1

   etc. etc.  Yeah, its big and boomy!  But I would allow Mage PCs to reduce direct damage by spending Colorless mana for themselves ONLY.  Each colorless Mana allows 1d4 to be taken off of the direct damage from a spell.

   Here is a kicker, once a card is played, it cannot be played again until the Mage makes it back to his own Land and re-creates the rituals (get another 20 cards).  Or the City States many Mage Guilds have ritual circles that can do the same.  Or find a place of power and create a Ritual Circle somewhere in the wild (at the whim of the GM).  This forces a reason to return to the City State.  So, long drawn out campaigns are going to be hell on the amount of spells you will have at the end.

   The Role Playing Aspect:
   What I envision is something like this:  The group decides to go  investigate an area.  Intel on such areas are sketchy, the Adversary has been around for awhile.  I also was thinking of linking Artifacts to the Adversary.   But based on the best guesses, the Mages construct their spell Ritual Matrixes (the deck of 20) and off they go.  They fight forces both neutral and Adversary allies.  Once those forces are defeated, the Land can be "Attuned".  This Attuning means the Land falls under the control of the City State.  
   Then another county can be explored, or maybe new spells and abilities need to be researched.  So the party returns to the City State.  Here, a regular cast, politics and subplots can happen.  Wrangle over who is getting Land grants and jockeying with other Mage groups.

   One can have the bare minimum of Magery and play a Serra Angel or any other MtG "type".  Eric could be Zombie Lord.  Or Eric, goblin shaman!   Leonids, golems, "tims", whatever floats the boat.  If players could find cards that they really like and build that personality, that would thrill me.

Random Thoughts
   The million people clustered around the City State need resources and land badly.  The Mage Groups are on the forefront of this.  So, there really is a built in reason to adventure.  I was thinking for brevity's sake, that each Mage Group has a liason to the Mage council.  This provides some direction, some help.  Example:  Maybe your liason could the Forest Troll Dematroa (made up the name) and he urges the Group to mount and expedition to find Tel-Jilad, the Tree of Tales.  Lost to the Adversary generations ago, but is now calling to him in dreams.

   Occasionally, the Adversary feels you making a move against him, so all of a sudden you start having artifact critters warping in right and left trying to stop you from Attuning the land.  Then I might actually have cards as the GM to play against you.
   
   I need to find or create a map of MtG world.  Maybe create it a bit at a time, so it evolves as the game does.

   Maybe the 20 card deck, 5 card hand to start  is not quite the right method.  Maybe the randomness of the draw would drive people nuts.  Maybe it would be cool.  The way I see the "magic theory" working is this.  Somewhere safe, the mage has created the ritual attuned to that card.  Using the spell, erases the Ritual markings back at home, university wherever.  But the Spell cards seem to be in three distinct groups.  The Hand, for use in combat.  The Deck, for the expedition and the Sideboard... those spells you know, but cannot access, they are at home.

   I think initiative should go back to dice.  Just roll your Smarts (to reflect quickness of thought, instead of body, Agility has so much utility in SW anyway).  Its open ended.

   The Wall of 5 Colors surrounds the "civilized" lands away from the Adversary.  Walls of Fog, Thorn, Fire and Water... kinda cool idea... heh.

   Gonna post this on the Pinnacle Boards.  Just for yucks.

   Dunno.  Maybe it is completely, completely nuts.  Battles might get too large with too many critters running around.    But 90% of this came to me in one flash.  Might be fun too.

[Walt Freitag]

I agree with contracycle in every particular.

Indeed, context-sensitive cards (cards that are either selected, modified, or excluded based on the current game state) as an alternative to both railroading and GM improvisation (including no-myth and intuitive continuity) is something I've been trying to pry open for a long time. (My Arabian Nights Iron Game Chef game is one attempt, not really successful.)

It seems obvious to me that for an expandable and customizable card game to be interesting, the cards should be facilitating something. In other words they should be helping players do something difficult, not getting in the way of doing something that would be inherently easy without the cards. Unfortunately, in the context of tabletop RPG play as we know it, cards representing player-character characteristics, equipment, and the like fall into the latter category.

- Walt

[Storn]

I wuz just overlooking the text I just pasted in.   I should also say this, Magic card vs. Magic card should be resovled just like MtG.  It is only when a spell card goes up against a PC/NPC that all the conversions take place.

So a 3/3 critter will wipe out a 2/2 critter.

Maybe.

Like i said, I never playtested any of this.  It all kinda came in a heated rush of creativity.

[daMoose_Neo]

In other words they should be helping players do something difficult, not getting in the way of doing something that would be inherently easy without the cards.

What would you consider some possible, even very vauge, examples of this? This is of particular interest to myself, as Twilight is and will always be something of a work in progress, though the rules themselves are pretty much set.

[Mike Holmes]

Two things:

The original post said that there was little talk here about CCGs being hybridized with RPGs. That may be true, but there has been some talk about it. I've talked with Nate about it before, and way before that, Fang Langford was very interested in this. You might be able to search up such conversations, or find some reference in the defunct "Scattershot" forum.

Point the second, I'm currently designing something like this. Slow process, but I think we may make it. Still very much in the starting phases of design, but if we develop it more, I'll go more public with it.

Mike

[Gamskee]

This is an absolutely excellent idea.

Advantages to the card game format could include:

-Random Character Creation could be extremely streamlined. Hell, you might be able to deal characters, grab a GM deck, and start playing.
-Random Event generation far better(GM plot cards, possibly plot twist cards on both sides).
-Serial Play(if the metaplot advanced with each new step, it could be much like the epic plot of L5R, but experienced in an RP firsthand nature versus detached card game nature)
-Cost could be reduced*

I see more of a customizable game than a collectable game. However, it could be one of the best factory produced plot campaigns ever.

I would personally use a multidimensional setting. Magic: the Gathering can make expansions forever because their universe extends on into forever. More races, magic, artifacts, etc. can always be found. As such, a multidimensional setting lends itself to collectability as it may never be finished.

Game would come out in sets for a grand metaplot. There would be a number of character decks(divided by region, class, race, or whatever made sense). The deck would be comprised of character creation cards and a resolution deck. The character creation in the game would be simple(based on a few core cards for race, class, or other core characteristic cards) with a number of option cards for skills and feat-like traits. Some of these Creation cards will have inherent abilities that can be used at will or work automatically, while others will effect what resolution cards you may use/have in your resolution deck. Resolution cards will be used to resolve actions with a general number(ala Deadlands card game or Overpower), but also have more specialized actions such as spells, fighting maneuvers, social maneuvers, and maybe even plot twists.

GM decks would include encounters and plot cards, as well as resolution cards.

Plot cards would include all the pieces for the current metaplot. Each card would list the different encounters needed for the plot, the gist of the plot, and any particulars it may need. This will make the metaplot something that has a definite structure, and the players may play through each plot in order.

Plot cards will be simple enough that original plots are not discouraged.

Encounters would include monsters, social interactions, or anything interesting. When playing, the GM chooses how he wishes to use the cards. The common format is to put the plot points into a stack and as each encounter comes up, flipping the card over and roleplaying out the encounter. A 'random' deck is kept on hand for when players decide to go off the beaten path and do other things.

Encounters may have a specific definition and a generic definition on them for greater versatility. For instance, a Dragon monster might be labeled Dragon/ Ferocious, large opponent appears.

Both GMs and players can level, which allows players to add and edit their creation cards and resolution decks, and for the GM to advance to higher plot cards and encounters.

When a new set comes out, a new part of the metaplot is revealed. New character decks come out for the new setting revealed, with a new GM deck to tell the next set of stories. Characters can be added to, or they can make new characters. Options for metamorphosis for those who wish to try out a new race might be an interesting idea.

Booster packs exist for those who want more cards and don't want to buy another character deck/GM deck, but include nothing that can't be found in the large decks.

Whether the sets should level and become more powered than the last or maintain a flexibility that anyone can start with any deck is a hard decision, as one promotes collectability but the other makes the game more entry level friendly.

*If a set came out once a year, at 10-15 dollars a deck, it is more expensive than some RPGs, but cheaper than collecting many card games. Also, if everyone buys their own stuff, definitely takes some financial burden off the GM.

[daMoose_Neo]

Its a possibility to do it via a PDF, and actually I'm going to give that a shot- look for me within the week to have finished a conversion of Final Twilight to have it available as a PDF item, see how people take to that. Might even throw up some previews of the expansion along with it.

Actually, Gamskee, Twilight's operating along those lines- both of them really. Each set is a standalone story, but a tie into a greater, futher reaching storyline. The primary release of each set will be a deck of cards built around a specific character (Mark Jarus, Kerra Neil, Charles Faust). Each release futhers the abilities of existing characters, as well as introduces new ones. Next set released will feature 4 character decks as opposed to the 3 of Trinity, allow you to expand the capabilities of the Trinity characters or mix-n-match with the old cards with the new characters. Power levels vary within the sets, so you can jump in at any set and still be able to compete.

On developing a Customizable/Expandable card game, costs are major issues.
-Typical games and typical gamers require seperate pieces of artwork for each card, so if you're talking hundreds of cards, thats as many pieces of art. Most of the games around here have some nice cover work, some b/w interior, and in a few instances some cool pieces of fan art, but not enough to support a CG.
One way around this might be to have specific cards with some very nice pieces of artwork (Basic Character cards, weapon cards) and others be like 'utility' cards. IE Events like "Ambush in the woods!" be a 'plain text' card while "Warrior Monk" has a piece of artwork.
- If we could find a PDF way to properly do this, it would mean ALOT, more than what it means to the Indie/PDF publication. As it stands, any print order to be cost effective has to be done in the 1000's. Printing any lower than that costs ALOT. (One printer who actually ran smaller runs would cost almost $20 per 54 card set to produce.) I'm setting up the PDF sets as printable on business cards. Fairly sturdy, can easily be run off, no issues for folks on card sizes and edges and other common issues.
- The biggest issue for CGs is one that plauges RPGs, but one thats slightly worse. Because each player needs their own decks to play, its harder to get a CG to take off. Cheaper yes than an RPG, but more people need to buy in, whereas RPGs need only one actual purchaser to get a group started. Because of the nature of other games and the need to continually purchase, CG gamers are leary of getting into another one, if they need to spend a lot to play. I could and couldn't believe the reactions I got at GenCon when I explained the release format for the game. "You mean, I won't have to buy new cards every other month?!". Even still, its a difficult market to crack. If you check my site, I'm giving the game away, and folks still aren't picking it up.

I'd highly recommend tackling some of these costs before jumping into designing and comitting. I'm always open to new ideas, and I'm always exploring myself. Twilights set due out is being printed on 4x6 postcards (1000 14pt glossy stock, color both sides, $75, friend with access to major print cutting presses is cutting them for me), on which I can print 2 cards. I'm also looking at the aforementioned PDF/Business card format, which can also be printed for around the same cost (1000 14pt glossy business cards, 4 color both sides, $40). Can also get away with 1 color sides for a lot cheaper.

With the questions and ideas going around here, here's another one...I've been considering putting together a forum similar to Forge for the purpose of exploring new ways to publish card games. Should I do so, anyone interested in such a beast?

[Callan S.]

Cheaper yes than an RPG, but more people need to buy in, whereas RPGs need only one actual purchaser to get a group started. Because of the nature of other games and the need to continually purchase, CG gamers are leary of getting into another one, if they need to spend a lot to play.

I thought most collectable games gave rules to play with whatever you get with the starter set. While the ideal is to have a full set, you can still play immediately (I recently bought the D&D skirmish game...collectable figures, but same idea...and I could play immediately)

Indeed, I thought that was the intelligent 'teaser' plan. They get a cheap set, can play immediately and then the little thought begins to develop in their minds of what play would be like with a full set (and would they find some more rares while building up to that, they wonder).

[daMoose_Neo]

Thats the idea, you CAN play with a starter deck or initial release, but in the eyes of a CG gamer, you need more than that. I have not known ANYONE who's gone ahead and picked up and played regularly with one deck/package. The starter decks teach the ropes, but a starter deck will almost always be beaten by a modified/constructed deck. Hence, part of a CG gamers first evaluation of a product is "How much am I going to have to buy to be competative?"
Even players totally new to CGs learn quickly when they start getting beaten by folks who have meticulously built decks. Normally the core kits or the starter kits are exactly that- you can play, but rarely does anything truly stand out. To play and win, players need to invest in the expansions and the power cards(items) therein.

Besides, as to cost, do a little bit of math. One Forge release might run $20, you have a group of 4 people who play, breakdown on that for one play group is $5 per person then. Now, the GM Owner of the book turns around and runs ANOTHER game with another 3 people- thats 7 people playing off one book. Thats $2.84 investment per player and only two groups playing, where there could easily be more players or more groups. Assuming the author only goes on to add additional flavor stuff available on the website for free, which isn't unreasonable, the only investment is the $20.
For your average CCG, each player at the minimum needs 1 deck ($10). After a couple of games, they realize they're learning the ropes, but not competing as well, so they buy say 3 Booster packs of the expansions available ($4 per pack, $12 total). Normally, the rares will be about all they can really make use of, either in game or as trading fodder, so they get 3 cards and around 42 coasters, depending on the player. Thats a $22 investment per player. For those two play groups of 7 people, thats $154 spent, within I'd say the first two weeks of playing (1 week learning the ropes playing regularly because the games can be played quickly, next week spent getting new cards and modifying decks). Considering your normal, regular playing, dedicated CG player will have a couple hundred to a thousand plus cards, thats a drop in the bucket, toward 'getting started'.

[daMoose_Neo]

Okay folks, lets see if we can't do this, shall we?

Hunters is an attempt at doing this, alibet possibly not really come to think of it.
SO, I'd like folks involved here to drop by the Hunters thread and offer up some suggestions. Lets see what we can cobble together.

Also, check out A Grand Experiment over in Publishing, lets see what that produces as well.

[Callan S.]

Thats the idea, you CAN play with a starter deck or initial release, but in the eyes of a CG gamer, you need more than that.

Well, isn't it okay if they think they need more than that, when by the design, they don't need much more than the basics?

I mean, its a bit cruel to damn any CCG designer because a wide demographic are compulsive purchasers.